GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jahmai Mashack 37.5m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

Heavy minutes amplified the damage of poor perimeter shot selection and offensive stagnation. Despite offering solid point-of-attack defense, his inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint. The negative total reflects how much his offensive limitations bogged down the starting unit.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 37.5m -23.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Cedric Coward 23.9m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Offensive struggles severely limited his effectiveness, as he repeatedly clanked open looks and stalled halfcourt sets. While his defensive engagement remained high, the inability to convert on the other end was too costly. The sharp drop-off from his usual scoring output left a noticeable void in the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.0%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.0
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 23.9m -15.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Cam Spencer 18.4m
16
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Lethal floor-spacing completely opened up the offense and drove a strong positive impact. He punished defensive breakdowns by knocking down catch-and-shoot looks at a high clip, easily surpassing his recent scoring averages. His off-ball movement constantly stressed the opposing defense.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.3
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 18.4m -11.6
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Failed to make his presence felt on either end of the floor, resulting in a steep negative rating. Poor defensive positioning and a lack of rebounding urgency allowed opponents to capitalize on his minutes. He continues to struggle with the speed of the game, looking hesitant on his perimeter closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 17.7m -11.1
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S GG Jackson 16.9m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.2

Hyper-efficient finishing carried his rating, as he consistently found soft spots in the defense for easy conversions. He didn't add much in terms of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption, keeping his total impact modest. Still, his ability to score without dominating the ball provided a reliable offensive safety valve.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 16.9m -10.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
12
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-14.2

Clunky offensive initiation and missed assignments cratered his overall impact score. He struggled to break down his primary defender, leading to forced shots late in the clock and transition opportunities going the other way. The heavy negative rating illustrates a rough night of trying to force action that wasn't there.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -34.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 33.2m -20.9
Impact -14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
Tyler Burton 31.9m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.4

Solid individual scoring efficiency masked a lack of overall team synergy during his extended minutes. He hunted his own offense effectively but didn't generate enough defensive stops or transition opportunities to win his minutes. The negative rating suggests his production came at the expense of offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.9m -20.0
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Adama Bal 31.0m
9
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

A passive offensive approach prevented him from maximizing his time on the floor. While he hit the few shots he took, his reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to rest. The negative impact stems from a lack of assertiveness that bogged down the team's halfcourt execution.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -26.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 31.0m -19.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.6

Efficient playmaking and solid defensive reads were surprisingly offset by hidden negative impacts in the flow of the game. He ran the offense well but likely suffered from being on the wrong end of opponent scoring runs. A classic case where strong individual efficiency didn't translate to team success during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -39.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 29.6m -18.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Oso Ighodaro 34.7m
11
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.9

High-level connective passing from the frontcourt fueled a strong offensive output. His defensive positioning and steady screen-setting created consistent advantages in the halfcourt. Continued his hyper-efficient finishing streak by strictly taking high-percentage looks near the rim.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 34.7m -21.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.6

Brutal perimeter inefficiency tanked his overall value despite excellent hustle metrics. He forced far too many contested looks from deep, killing offensive momentum and fueling opponent transition chances. The high-effort loose ball recoveries couldn't offset the damage done by his poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.4%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 32.2m -20.1
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Booker 25.8m
36
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+13.8

Absolute offensive mastery drove a massive positive impact, as he relentlessly punished drop coverage and isolation matchups. The sheer volume of highly efficient shot creation overwhelmed the opposing defense. His scoring gravity opened up the floor, making up for relatively quiet hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 16/24 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 38.0%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +27.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +30.0
Avg player in 25.8m -16.2
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Green 24.4m
21
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Steady two-way play kept his overall impact firmly in the green. His perimeter shot-making paired nicely with solid defensive rotations to anchor the wing minutes. Maintained his recent scoring rhythm without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 24.4m -15.3
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Royce O'Neale 24.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

A lack of defensive disruption and low offensive volume dragged down his overall rating. He struggled to leave a footprint on the game, floating on the perimeter rather than attacking closeouts. The negative total reflects a player who was largely invisible during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 24.4m -15.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.7

Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle completely overshadowed a clunky shooting night. He wreaked havoc at the point of attack, generating extra possessions and scrambling the opponent's offensive sets. His playmaking and grit turned a poor shooting performance into a highly positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +13.2
Raw total +25.4
Avg player in 28.2m -17.7
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

A significant scoring bump from his recent baseline was supported by excellent rim deterrence. He brought great energy to the frontcourt, challenging shots and running the floor hard in transition. The combination of interior defense and opportunistic finishing yielded a solid positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +49.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 23.6m -14.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 21.7m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Low-maintenance efficiency and versatile defensive coverage highlighted a highly effective rotation shift. He didn't demand the ball, instead finding value through timely cuts and active weak-side help. A textbook example of a role player maximizing his impact through hustle and discipline.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +15.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.1
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 21.7m -13.6
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.3

Completely dominated the glass in a highly productive short stint. His massive defensive presence deterred drivers and ended possessions instantly with strong rebounding fundamentals. He maximized every second of his playing time by playing strictly within his physical role.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +8.9
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 13.3m -8.4
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.2

Provided a massive spark plug effect in limited minutes by capitalizing on every touch. He attacked gaps decisively, completely reversing his recent shooting struggles with perfect execution. The flawless short-burst production heavily skewed his impact metrics into the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +87.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 5.6m -3.6
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 3.9m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Managed a slight positive impact during a brief cameo by moving the ball quickly and hitting an open look. He didn't force any action, simply keeping the offense flowing during his short stint. The minimal sample size kept his overall rating relatively flat.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +88.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 3.9m -2.4
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CJ Huntley 2.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Barely saw the floor and struggled to get acclimated to the pace of the game. A slight defensive lapse in his brief appearance pushed his rating into the red. Mostly just cardio during a quick rotational bridge.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +116.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.2m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.2m -1.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0